for the COVID-ICU Gemelli Study Group IMPORTANCE High-flow nasal oxygen is recommended as initial treatment for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and is widely applied in patients with COVID-19.OBJECTIVE To assess whether helmet noninvasive ventilation can increase the days free of respiratory support in patients with COVID-19 compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSMulticenter randomized clinical trial in 4 intensive care units (ICUs) in Italy between October and December 2020, end of follow-up February 11, 2021, including 109 patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure (ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen Յ200).INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomly assigned to receive continuous treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation (positive end-expiratory pressure, 10-12 cm H 2 O; pressure support, 10-12 cm H 2 O) for at least 48 hours eventually followed by high-flow nasal oxygen (n = 54) or high-flow oxygen alone (60 L/min) (n = 55). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days after enrollment. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who required endotracheal intubation within 28 days from study enrollment, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 28, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 60, in-ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, 60-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay. RESULTS Among 110 patients who were randomized, 109 (99%) completed the trial (median age, 65 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 55-70]; 21 women [19%]). The median days free of respiratory support within 28 days after randomization were 20 (IQR, 0-25) in the helmet group and 18 (IQR, 0-22) in the high-flow nasal oxygen group, a difference that was not statistically significant (mean difference, 2 days [95% CI, −2 to 6]; P = .26). Of 9 prespecified secondary outcomes reported, 7 showed no significant difference. The rate of endotracheal intubation was significantly lower in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (30% vs 51%; difference, −21% [95% CI, −38% to −3%]; P = .03). The median number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation within 28 days was significantly higher in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (28 [IQR,[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] vs 25 ; mean difference, 3 days [95% CI, 0-7]; P = .04). The rate of in-hospital mortality was 24% in the helmet group and 25% in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (absolute difference, −1% [95% CI, −17% to 15%]; P > .99).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemia, treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation, compared with high-flow nasal oxygen, resulted in no significant difference in the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days. Further research is warranted to determine...

Background Whether respiratory physiology of COVID-19-induced respiratory failure is different from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) of other etiologies is unclear. We conducted a single-center study to describe respiratory mechanics and response to positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in COVID-19 ARDS and to compare COVID-19 patients to matched-control subjects with ARDS from other causes. Methods Thirty consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to an intensive care unit in Rome, Italy, and fulfilling moderate-to-severe ARDS criteria were enrolled within 24 h from endotracheal intubation. Gas exchange, respiratory mechanics, and ventilatory ratio were measured at PEEP of 15 and 5 cmH 2 O. A single-breath derecruitment maneuver was performed to assess recruitability. After 1:1 matching based on PaO 2 /FiO 2 , FiO 2 , PEEP, and tidal volume, COVID-19 patients were compared to subjects affected by ARDS of other etiologies who underwent the same procedures in a previous study. Results Thirty COVID-19 patients were successfully matched with 30 ARDS from other etiologies. At low PEEP, median [25th–75th percentiles] PaO 2 /FiO 2 in the two groups was 119 mmHg [101–142] and 116 mmHg [87–154]. Average compliance (41 ml/cmH 2 O [32–52] vs. 36 ml/cmH 2 O [27–42], p = 0.045) and ventilatory ratio (2.1 [1.7–2.3] vs. 1.6 [1.4–2.1], p = 0.032) were slightly higher in COVID-19 patients. Inter-individual variability (ratio of standard deviation to mean) of compliance was 36% in COVID-19 patients and 31% in other ARDS. In COVID-19 patients, PaO 2 /FiO 2 was linearly correlated with respiratory system compliance ( r = 0.52 p = 0.003). High PEEP improved PaO 2 /FiO 2 in both cohorts, but more remarkably in COVID-19 patients ( p = 0.005). Recruitability was not different between cohorts ( p = 0.39) and was highly inter-individually variable (72% in COVID-19 patients and 64% in ARDS from other causes). In COVID-19 patients, recruitability was independent from oxygenation and respiratory mechanics changes due to PEEP. Conclusions Early after establishment of mechanical ventilation, COVID-19 patients follow ARDS physiology, with compliance reduction related to the degree of hypoxemia, and inter-individually variable respiratory mechanics and recruitability. Physiological differences between ARDS from COVID-19 and other causes appear small.

Aims To identify the most accurate early warning score (EWS) for predicting an adverse outcome in COVID-19 patients admitted to the emergency department (ED). Methods In adult consecutive patients admitted (March 1-April 15, 2020) to the ED of a major referral centre for COVID-19, we retrospectively calculated NEWS, NEWS2, NEWS-C, MEWS, qSOFA, and REMS from physiological variables measured on arrival. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve of each EWS for predicting admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and death at 48 h and 7 days were calculated. Results We included 334 patients (119 [35.6%] females, median age 66 [54-78] years). At 7 days, the rates of ICU admission and death were 56/334 (17%) and 26/334 (7.8%), respectively. NEWS was the most accurate predictor of ICU admission within 7 days (AUROC 0.783 [95% CI, 0.735-0.826]; sensitivity 71.4 [57.8-82.7]%; NPV 93.1 [89.8-95.3]%), while REMS was the most accurate predictor of death within 7 days (AUROC 0.823 [0.778–0.863]; sensitivity 96.1 [80.4-99.9]%; NPV 99.4[96.2–99.9]%). Similar results were observed for ICU admission and death at 48 h. NEWS and REMS were as accurate as the triage system used in our ED. MEWS and qSOFA had the lowest overall accuracy for both outcomes. Conclusion In our single-centre cohort of COVID-19 patients, NEWS and REMS measured on ED arrival were the most sensitive predictors of 7-day ICU admission or death. EWS could be useful to identify patients with low risk of clinical deterioration.